Senators Question Halliburton Executive About Dealings in Iran

[maddezmom]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON, April 30 — A Halliburton executive, facing withering criticism from Democratic lawmakers during a Senate hearing on Monday about the company’s business dealings in Iran, insisted that the firm had not broken any laws.

The official, Sherry Williams, a Halliburton vice president and corporate secretary, said the company had consulted several law firms in 1995 after sanctions were imposed on Iran. Officials of the company, which recently announced it was moving its chief executive from Houston to Dubai and establishing a corporate headquarters there, determined that it was legal for independent foreign subsidiaries of United States companies to do business there, she said.

“We have followed U.S. law,” she said. “We will continue to follow U.S. law.”

Although the three Democratic senators on hand repeatedly suggested broader concerns than strict legality should have prompted the company to halt its business in Iran, Ms. Williams expressed no regret for the firm’s work there.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/01halliburton.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

---

Halliburton defends its dealings
Subsidiary's work in Iran was not against law, executive contends


By DAVID IVANOVICH
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — A Halliburton Co. executive Monday defended the legality of the oil-field-services giant's past business dealings in Iran, dismissing suggestions a foreign subsidiary working there wasn't truly independent of the parent.

Sherry Williams, Halliburton's vice president and corporate secretary, told a Senate panel the company sought advice from three outside law firms as well as federal regulators about the work a foreign subsidiary might perform in Iran in the wake of a 1995 executive order barring U.S. companies from trading with Tehran.

Halliburton did business for years with Iran through a Cayman Islands-registered company called Halliburton Products & Services Ltd., based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Under current law, U.S. citizens and operations cannot do business directly with Iran. But foreign subsidiaries are permitted to do work there as long as the subsidiary acts independently of the parent company.

more:http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4763381.html

[acmavm]

1. I most certainly think this belongs on the greatest page. This story is NOT

getting the attention it deserves because buried deep in the bottom of the secret workings of this company is the story of treason and why we are where we are today.

[maddezmom]

2. US Lawmakers Seek to Close Loophole in Sanctions Law

US Lawmakers Seek to Close Loophole in Sanctions Law
By Deborah Tate
Capitol Hill
30 April 2007



Senate Democrats are expressing concern about a loophole in U.S. sanctions law that allows American companies to do business through their foreign subsidiaries with countries that the United States designates as state sponsors of terrorism. A Senate panel conducted a hearing on the issue Monday, as VOA's Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.

U.S. law prohibits American companies from trading directly with Iran and other countries designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.

But foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms can operate there, as long as they are run separately from their American operations and do not hire U.S. citizens as managers, directors or employees.

Critics say it is convenient way for U.S. companies to circumvent sanctions.

Victor Comras, a retired U.S. career diplomat who is now a consultant on international trade embargoes, testified before a Senate Commerce subcommittee:

more:http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-04-30-voa68.cfm

[LiberalFighter]

17. How does a foreign subsidiary operate separately from the parent company?

[maddezmom]

19. because of the loophole, I suppose

:shrug: I report and let knowledgeable DU'ers teach me. But i'm sure Cheney has had a hand in the loophole. :D

[maddezmom]

3. GE says directors voted to stop seeking new business in Iran in 2005

GE says directors voted to stop seeking new business in Iran in 2005
April 30, 2007 19:46 EDT


COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- A General Electric Company spokesman says the company's board of directors voted in 2005 to stop seeking new business in Iran.

But spokesman Russell Wilkerson says G-E has continued, through foreign subsidiaries, to honor service and maintenance agreements for power plants and sell spare parts for oil and natural gas projects.

Both sponsors of a bill that would pull Ohio's largest investment funds out of Iran hold stock in G-E.

State Representatives Shannon Jones and Josh Mandel , both freshman Republicans, reported owning G-E common stock on state financial disclosure forms last year.

more;http://www.daytonsnewssource.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.oh/2727c67d-www.daytonsnewssource.com.shtml

[maddezmom]

4. Lawmakers' own portfolios had Iran investment ties

Published April 30 2007


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Both sponsors of a bill that would pull Ohio's largest investment funds out of Iran hold stock in General Electric Co., whose business ties to the sanctioned nation have came under scrutiny.

State Reps. Shannon Jones and Josh Mandel, both freshman Republicans, reported owning GE stock on state financial disclosure forms last year - and both said Monday they still hold the shares. Neither said how much they own and didn't know about GE's operations in Iran until after they bought the stock.


"What you're calling about is the crux of the issue," said Mandel, an Iraq Marine veteran from Lyndhurst. "Until large institutional investors take leadership in this arena, there are not going to be very many opportunities for Joe Citizen to invest terror-free."

Former CIA director James Woolsey is scheduled to testify in favor of the Ohio bill Thursday.

more;http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-30173916.apds.m0636.bc-ct--iranapr30,0,5868292.story?track=rss

[maddezmom]

5. a new book about Halliburton in Iraq

Book: American troops betrayed
Accounts of privatization of war collected

~snip~

"Betraying our Troops" tells the experiences of numerous soldiers and contractor whistleblowers trying to perform in life-and-death situations with scant supplies. Each story is corroborated by four or five other sources, Rasor said, and documented in a 17-page appendix.

As Rasor and Bauman explain in their book, the Iraq war is the first in which the U.S. government has relied on contractors for combat mission support — the massive and important job of delivering everything soldiers need on the battlefield: radios, boots, guns, food, water, weapons, tanks, trucks and truck parts.

In past wars, contractors built weapons and other equipment, but did not deliver them to the front.

"To keep troop levels down and in the rush to war," before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld established a new way to handle logistics, Rasor said and documented in her book. He established the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, LOGCAP, a unit of the Army whose task it was to arrange logistics from civilian contractors.

"Both the Government Accountability Office and the Pentagon's Inspector General had warned the Army that it could not count on private companies to be there for them when it counted on the battlefield," Rasor and Bauman wrote.

The tragic consequence of this new arrangement has been that many times contractors have refused to go into dangerous areas, leaving soldiers in need, they wrote.

more:http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_5791321?source=rss

[lynnertic]

6. the Senate Senate Subcommittee on Interstate Commerce Trade and Tourism held the hearing btw

Their website is here
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Subcommittees.Subcommittee&Subcommittee_ID=86

and you can watch the hearing here:
rtsp://video.webcastcenter.com/srs_g2/commerce043007m

[maddezmom]

7. welcome to DU

and thanks for the links :hi:

[lynnertic]

9. Hey! You're welcome.

I've been reading DU for a long time. I'm glad to be here.

[maddezmom]

18. we can be a rowdy bunch

but all and all we're pretty fun, but since you've been reading here for a while I'm probably telling you something you already know. :D

[Chemical Bill]

8. Treason!

Think Ann Coulter will write a book about this?

Bill

[gratuitous]

10. I wonder how much Dick Cheney personally benefited from dealing with Iran?

Or is it gauche to wonder how someone got his money, since having money is the be-all and end-all of America, what does it matter?

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. What lawyer told them it was legal? Gonzalez's twin?

The reality is that you can buy any lawyer to reach any conclusion you want. Thanks local bar association, for nuthin.

[peacetalksforall]

12. Seven questions. 1. What was the nature of the work they did there?

2. Was it related to a nuclear program for Iran - in any form or nature?
3. Who was reponsible for this loophole - was it Clinton, Dems, Republicans? Any names?
4. Did any Democrat speak up about this inside or outside the House or Senate floor before yesterday?
5. How much do these companies contribute to Democrats?

GE Halliburton - despicable - this presents perfect proof of who is a patriot or not. Their shareholders are not patriots either. And anyone who buys from them. We are being taken for fools, folks - we are here only to be kicked around and thrown out on the street and be subject to the prisons they build and their ultra psychotic programs of dis-reality. What a bunch of crooks and manipulators. Dwight Eisenhower. I also condemn Iran.

6. Are they going to get away with this?
7. Are we now going in and bombing the hell out of Iran - so they can go in and reconstruct Iran? FROM THEIR OVERSEAS HOME OFFICE AND GE'S SUBSIDIARIES.

extra question - who are the other companies.
extra question - these companines are really buddy, buddy with each other - no?

[acmavm]

13. I'm amazed how these people think making money trumps

loyalty to one's country.

[maddezmom]

16. I was thinking the same today, and not only that Cheney and his

crew made certain they would be able to continue work while others would have to stop due to legal issues. Crowd out the competition and make millions. Nice work if you can get it. :sarcasm:

[loudsue]

14. And now they're charging $1Million to build a new armored humvee!!

One million fucking dollars for a new humvee with armour.... Halliburton & friends are milking this country dry, and selling weapons and goodies to our enemies.

There can be no more evil people on earth than this crowd.

:kick::kick::kick:

[louis-t]

15. While Chee-nee was CEO, they were doing biz with Iraq.

Same reply, "It wasn't illegal." But it was immoral and dishonest.